I was wrong about Obama

[_Kevin Graham]

Nowhere does the Constitution enshrine the philosophy of the social or welfare liberal.

Apparently, you're unfamiliar with the general welfare clause.

I would suggest that he's referring to the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

Because that would make it easier to sarcastically refer to him as a constitutional "genius" right? Your argument is based on this assumption for which teh context of his statement completely undermines.

If you're going to make the argument that the DOI refers to men whereas the 14th amendment refers to all people, you're in some difficulty since it did nothing to give women the vote.

But Obama didn't refer to amendments alone, he referred to the Constitution as a whole, which includes all amendments, including the 19th amendment which does give women the right to vote. But he wasn't referring to voting right anyway. Here is what Obama said in context:

"Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.

In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America – values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values they're living by; business values or labor values. They are American values."

Gee, what an evil unamerican bastard that Obama is.

Why would anyone have a problem with Obamacare. He wants single payer ultimately and we all know how wonderful that is:

Much better than what we have now, that's for sure. Richard, have you ever lived in a country with a single-payer system? Because I have. There is a reason America has one of the worst health care systems in the world, far behind those with single-payer systems like France, England and Canada. You're always going to find articles critical of all health care systems, but these alone do not make the case that a capitalistic for profit system is the best option. The notion that health care is a commodity and not a basic human right, is morally repulsive. How can you have the right to life, liberty and happiness without first having the right to health?

[_Kevin Graham]

More information for Kevin to consider:

So let me see if I got this straight. Amidst a barage of last ditch efforts to kill Health Care Reform, which involves a disinformation campaign of the worst sort, a Republican decides to go off on a rant about how the CBO, which is non-partisan, is too stupid to get its number straight.

Say it ain't so.

[_Eric]

If you don't like healthcare you can git out.

[_bcspace]

Nowhere does the Constitution enshrine the philosophy of the social or welfare liberal.

Apparently, you're unfamiliar with the general welfare clause.

I'm quite familiar with the preamble. So where in the Constitution is the stated purpose of the Constitution (the preamble) reflected by social or welfare liberalism?

[_Kevin Graham]

You're asking me why the preamble of the constitution doesn't explicitly refer to a system that wouldn't be coined until a century later? The preamble doesn't mention Milton Friedman's doctrine of classical liberalism either. So what? Here is the preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article one section 8 of the constitution says,

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

According to Wiki:

"Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in asserting that a liberal state should provide jobs, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual."

So let's contrast and compare...

"Good of the community," compared to "We the people...a more perfect Union"?

"Provide jobs, health care" compared to "Insure domestic Tranquility...promote the general Welfare?"

How in the hell is that contrary to the Constitution? Domestic tranquility can never be reached without minimizing the poorer class. When the poor are neglected they become desperate, and the desperate become violent and rebellious, leading to higher crime rates that affect all Americans, rich or poor.

[_bcspace]

You're asking me why the preamble of the constitution doesn't explicitly refer to a system that wouldn't be coined until a century later? The preamble doesn't mention Milton Friedman's doctrine of classical liberalism either. So what? Here is the preamble:

Yes, but you were defending Obama's argument that the Constitution supports his brand of health care so you just contradicted yourself by your own logic.

[_Kevin Graham]

How the hell did I contradict myself and what the hell is Obama's "own brand of health care"?

You asked where social liberalism can reasonably understood and justified from the Constitution. I showed you.

[_richardMdBorn]

More information for Kevin to consider:

So let me see if I got this straight. Amidst a barage of last ditch efforts to kill Health Care Reform, which involves a disinformation campaign of the worst sort, a Republican decides to go off on a rant about how the CBO, which is non-partisan, is too stupid to get its number straight.

Say it ain't so.

Wow Kevin, it appears that you're back to 2002 in terms of your arguments. Note this article by the former director of the CBO in that right wing rag the New York Times.

On Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html

[_Kevin Graham]

In 2007, Holtz-Eakin was hired as chief economic policy adviser to U.S. Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. In early 2010, Holtz-Eakin became president of American Action Forum, a Republican think tank. Since joining American Action Network, Holtz-Eakin has appeared on Fox News to argue against a 2010 health care bill, as well as writing a similarly-worded Op-Ed for the New York Times.

Yeah, no bias there AT ALL... right Richard?

Come on.

The way they make the CBO sound so ridiculously unreliable, kinda makes you wonder why it exists at all. Of course these same people are quick to use and refer to CBO predictions whenever they're favorable to their agendas.

[_Calculus Crusader]

With single payer, the government does not necessarily "run" health care, just the insurance/payment mechanism. I do not have an a priori objection to single payer, provided premiums reflect the real costs/risks associated with a patient. However, the track record of government insurance is very poor, flood insurance being a fine example.